Monday, December 15, 2014

So Eli hied hisself down the DC Court of Appeals and picked up a copy of the oral argument in CEI and National Review vs. Michael Mann. Having a new toy, the Bunny is now pleased to present a piece from Michael Mann's attorney, John Williams, somewhat in response to what was written at National Review on line by Charles Cooke

Judge Easterly, meanwhile, wanted to know how the plaintiffs could demonstrate “actual malice” if the defendants “genuinely” believe that “[man-made] climate change is a hoax.” “We don’t have to get to the question of whether climate change is real to look at the accusations,” Williams shot back. This did not seem to convince. “You need clear and convincing evidence for malice,” Easterly said. Simply stating that your critics disagree with you is insufficient.

This description has caused great rejoicing amongst the Steyn Simberg crowd, but maybe no

As to what Eli thinks is going to happen, well, as National Law Journal points out, the court has to figure out if they are going to allow immediate appeals of SLAPP suit rulings,

In May, the D.C. Court of Appeals ruled that an anonymous Wikipedia editor could appeal a judge's order denying a special motion to quash a subpoena for his identity. In that case, local attorney Susan Burke sued the editor over information posted on her Wikipedia page that she argued was defamatory. Judge Catharine Easterly (at left), one of the judges hearing Mann's case, wrote the opinion.

Lawyers for the defendants sued by Mann pointed to Burke's case in arguing that the court should allow immediate appeals for denials of special motions to dismiss. The D.C. government has supported that interpretation of the law.

As the federal and local courts sort out the practical realities of the anti-SLAPP statute, cases testing the law continue to trickle up. On the heels of the Mann case in the D.C. Court of Appeals is a defamation lawsuit filed by a local doctor against a former patient who wrote a negative review on Yelp. A judge partially granted a motion to dismiss under the anti-SLAPP law. The case is being briefed.

So probably yes, immediate appeals will be allowed, but to avoid being snowed under, they are going to have to define the grounds for dismissing under the SLAPP law in detail. Given that, the court will, IEHO and EINAL, either affirm the ruling of the court below, or set out clear rules and toss it back.

7 comments:

"in America, robust public debate is not actionable, but worthy of celebration instead."

Would Eli who has gotten a paw in edgewise in the comments following Cooke's remarks, care to ask Cooke why, in that spirit, National Review's new neocon management has banned so many of its Buckley era contributors from commenting on anything the Climate Wars included ?

If the lawsuit ever gets to the discovery phase I believe that Steyn, the NR, and the CEI will have to turn over their emails relating to Dr Mann and the whole Hockeystick controversy. IMO, they would make fascinating reading, and I suspect that they would clearly show malice.

Discovery: yes ...but as it happens, there is already plenty of evidence that happens to be public.See Strange Scholarship in the Wegman Report, pp.28-32, of the various activities. Note the little boxes that include CEI people. Actually, there's an earlier connection between CEI and McKitrick that I didn't know about then.

See also p.40 [GMI2003] [GMI2005] and [GMI2005a] which include CEI involvement.(Some of those may no logner be at GMI website, but look them up with Wayback if need be.]

Inquiring bunnies might wonder if Mann's lawyers might be aware of this history, but given that SSWR is referenced rather often in Chapter 15 of Mann's HSCW ... it might be a moot point.

Put that together with the various other players from the earlier Crescendo to Climategate Cacophony, and the number of potential characters in email discovery gets much larger. Put another way, CEI + GMI were key players at the nexus of bringing the attacks on Mann forward, and helping the Wegman Report get rolling, but there are still many as-yet-unknown connections.

The wonderful thing about emails is they can open the curtains and shed light on all sorts of interesting, though unsavory, tidbits.

A few years ago when our neighbor sued us over the property line, his emails to his attorney would normally have been privileged, but he had cc'ed the surveyor who turned over the whole batch of emails, including their strategy to drop the lawsuit on us at Christmas. (He's such a Grinch) After the trial, several jurors told us that those emails were the most persuasive evidence presented, far more interesting than dry legalese.

Rabett Run

Subscribe Rabett Run

The Bunny Trail By Email

Contributors

Eli Rabett

Eli Rabett, a not quite failed professorial techno-bunny who finally handed in the keys and retired from his wanna be research university. The students continue to be naive but great people and the administrators continue to vary day-to-day between homicidal and delusional without Eli's help. Eli notices from recent political developments that this behavior is not limited to administrators. His colleagues retain their curious inability to see the holes that they dig for themselves. Prof. Rabett is thankful that they, or at least some of them occasionally heeded his pointing out the implications of the various enthusiasms that rattle around the department and school. Ms. Rabett is thankful that Prof. Rabett occasionally heeds her pointing out that he is nuts.